High Court

2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, U/S 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites on 21.4.2022. After the said marriage, a baby boy was born to the said wedlock. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of Rs. 10 lakhs as dowry, thereby are stated to have administered her some poison and caused her death on 9.4.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The FIR is delayed. There is no time of offence mentioned in it.

7. The FIR stands falsified from the fact that the applicant as well as his wife (deceased person) had tried to commit suicide and the applicant failed in the said attempt, while his wife succumbed to the consumption of the said Aluminium Phosphide (Celphos).

8. The treatment papers of both the persons, the victim and the applicant have been filed as Annexures-2 and 3 respectively and both have been admitted to the same hospital at about the same time i.e. on 9.4.2024 at about 3.30 am. Both the persons were admitted by the brother-in-law/brother of the deceased and the applicant, respectively. Incidentally, the applicant survived, as is evident from the documents and he was hospitalized for a period of twelve days and the gastric lavage was conducted, which is but evident from the documents.

9. The suicide note also mentions the said fact that both had tried to commit suicide. The said suicide note is genuine, as is evident from the F.S.L. report, which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The offence made out against the applicant may fall u/s 309 IPC only, which has already been decided by the Supreme Court to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

12. The bail application has been opposed but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant has not been disputed. CONCLUSION:

13. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

17. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that both the applicant and the deceased had attempted to commit suicide, while the attempt of the applicant failed, which is but evident from the medical report and the suicide note, coupled by the FSL report, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ankur Sharma involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, U/S 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Haldaur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the daughter of the informant as per Hindu rites on 21.4.2022. After the said marriage, a baby boy was born to the said wedlock. The applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected her to cruelty for a demand of Rs. 10 lakhs as dowry, thereby are stated to have administered her some poison and caused her death on 9.4.2024. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT:

5. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has nothing to do with the said offence.

6. The FIR is delayed. There is no time of offence mentioned in it.

7. The FIR stands falsified from the fact that the applicant as well as his wife (deceased person) had tried to commit suicide and the applicant failed in the said attempt, while his wife succumbed to the consumption of the said Aluminium Phosphide (Celphos).

8. The treatment papers of both the persons, the victim and the applicant have been filed as Annexures-2 and 3 respectively and both have been admitted to the same hospital at about the same time i.e. on 9.4.2024 at about 3.30 am. Both the persons were admitted by the brother-in-law/brother of the deceased and the applicant, respectively. Incidentally, the applicant survived, as is evident from the documents and he was hospitalized for a period of twelve days and the gastric lavage was conducted, which is but evident from the documents.

9. The suicide note also mentions the said fact that both had tried to commit suicide. The said suicide note is genuine, as is evident from the F.S.L. report, which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The offence made out against the applicant may fall u/s 309 IPC only, which has already been decided by the Supreme Court to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

10. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

11. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.10.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/STATE:

12. The bail application has been opposed but the fact that there is no criminal history of the applicant has not been disputed. CONCLUSION:

13. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785 this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

16. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”.

17. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

18. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer.

19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, the fact that both the applicant and the deceased had attempted to commit suicide, while the attempt of the applicant failed, which is but evident from the medical report and the suicide note, coupled by the FSL report, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

20. Let the applicant- Ankur Sharma involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Shalini (Justice Krishan Pahal)